PERFECTIONISM AND SPORT EXPERIENCES Sarah H. Mallinson · 2015. 8. 17. · 1 PERFECTIONISM AND SPORT EXPERIENCES The 2 × 2 Model of Perfectionism and School- and Community-Based

1

PERFECTIONISM AND SPORT EXPERIENCES

The 2 × 2 Model of Perfectionism and School- and Community-Based Sport Participation

Sarah H. Mallinson

York St John University

Andrew P. Hill

University of Leeds

Howard K. Hall

York St John University

John K. Gotwals

Lakehead University

Author Note

Sarah H. Mallinson and Howard K. Hall, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, York St

John University, York, UK; Andrew P. Hill, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds,

Leeds, UK; John K. Gotwals, School of Kinesiology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON,

Canada.

This research is based on data collected for, and material contained in, the corresponding

author’s doctoral dissertation.

John K. Gotwals’ contribution to the research primarily occurred while he was a

Leverhulme Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at York St John

University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah H. Mallinson,

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, York St John University, York, UK, e-mail:

[email protected].

2


Abstract

This study adopted the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010) to examine

the unique and interactive effects of two dimensions of perfectionism (personal standards

perfectionism; PSP and evaluative concerns perfectionism; ECP) on personal and interpersonal

indicators of participant experience in youth sport (enjoyment, physical self-worth, and

friendship quality). Participants (n = 219, M age = 15.12, SD = 2.02) were recruited from various

school- and community-based sports and completed a multi-section questionnaire. Consideration

of main and interaction effects indicated that pure PSP (high PSP/low ECP) was associated with

the most positive sport experience and pure ECP (low PSP/high ECP) was associated with the

least positive sport experience. The findings suggest that subtypes of perfectionism from the 2 ×

2 model are predictive of differing experiences in youth sport participation.

Keywords: motivation, achievement striving, sport experience

3


The 2 × 2 Model of Perfectionism and School- and Community-Based Sport Participation

Youth sport provides a context in which young people can gain a range of physical

health, psychosocial, emotional, and developmental benefits (Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2006). In

terms of the psychosocial and emotional gains, positive youth sport experiences can involve

considerable enjoyment, enhanced physical self-worth, and constructive peer relations (Fraser-

Thomas & Côté, 2006). Enjoyment captures the positive feelings that can accompany sport such

as pleasure and fun (Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993), while enhanced

physical self-worth relates to how positively individuals can come to view themselves in the

physical domain (Fox, 2000). These two outcomes exemplify the personal benefits of youth sport

participation. Constructive peer relations, by contrast, concern the quality of friendships in sport

and peer acceptance and exemplify how the benefits of youth sport participation can also be

interpersonal (Smith, 2007). In order to ensure that these rewards are available for all

participants, factors that shape youth sport experiences need to be examined (Fraser-Thomas &

Côté, 2006).

Over the past three and a half decades, a social-cognitive approach to motivation has

emerged as one of the most popular means of understanding youth sport experiences and related

consequences (Roberts, 2012). There are a number of models, grounded in a social-cognitive

approach, that have been adopted in this regard. Some of the most influential models include

perceived competence theory (Harter, 1978), self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), and

achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1984). Common to these models is the role of the social

environment in shaping experiences in sport and the mediating influence of how an individual

gives meaning to their achievement-related behavior through perceptions of competence and

success (Roberts, 2012; Weiss, 2008). In support of this approach, a substantial amount of

4


research attests to the importance of social-environmental and individual factors from within

these models when predicting patterns of cognition, affect, and behaviors in youth sport (e.g.,

achievement goals, perceived competence, and the perceived motivational climate; Roberts,

2012). In accord, within this perspective, other factors that give meaning to achievement-related

behavior are likely to be important, including personality characteristics such as perfectionism

(Flett & Hewitt, 2005).

Multidimensional perfectionism

Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality trait broadly defined as a combination of

exceedingly high standards and a preoccupation with harsh critical evaluations (Frost, Marten,

Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Consistent with the definition of

perfectionism, two dimensions of perfectionism can be differentiated (Stoeber, 2011). The first

dimension has been termed personal standards perfectionism (PSP; Gaudreau & Thompson,

2010) and captures aspects of perfectionism that reflect striving for perfection and setting

excessively high personal performance standards. The second dimension has been termed

evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010) and captures aspects of

perfectionism that reflect doubts about abilities to meet personally- and socially-imposed

perfectionistic standards, concerns over making mistakes, and fears over failure and negative

social evaluations. These two dimensions are typically captured using single subscales or a

combination of subscales from existing measures. For example, personal standards (i.e., the

setting of and striving for high standards; Frost et al., 1990) can be used as a proxy of PSP and

concern over mistakes (i.e., an overly critical self-evaluative tendency involving the fear of

making mistakes; Frost et al., 1990) and/or doubts about actions (i.e., the sense that a

5


performance or task has not been satisfactorily completed as well as feelings of uncertainty

regarding when a task is complete; Frost et al., 1990) as proxies of ECP (see Stoeber, 2011).

Regarding PSP, it appears to energize achievement striving in a manner similar to how

goals can motivate and direct behavior toward satisfying experiences (see Locke & Latham,

1990). In accord, research has found PSP to have largely positive associations with adaptive

characteristics in the sport domain, particularly when its association with ECP is controlled for

(see Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012). Of note, PSP is linked with factors that contribute

to a more adaptive approach to defining success and judging one’s capabilities, such as greater

task-involvement and perceived ability (e.g., Appleton, Hall, & Hill, 2009; Dunn, Causgrove

Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002; Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998; Lemyre, Hall, & Roberts, 2008).

Respectively, PSP is associated with indicators of positive sport experiences such as positive

affect, satisfaction, self-confidence, self-esteem, and perceived social acceptance (e.g., Appleton

et al., 2009; Hill, Hall, Appleton, & Kozub, 2008; Kaye, Conroy, & Fifer, 2008; McArdle &

Duda, 2008; Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller, 2005). It is also inversely associated with

indicators of negative sport experiences such as anxiety and athlete burnout (e.g., Appleton et al.,

2009; Hall et al., 1998; Hill, 2013). Overall, research suggests that PSP may be associated with

more positive experiences in youth sport (at least in the absence of ECP).

In contrast to PSP, ECP captures dysfunctional beliefs and attitudes that appear to distort

the meaning given to achievement achievement-related behavior so to contribute to a range of

psychologically debilitating outcomes (Hall, 2006). Research supports this, indicating that ECP

has positive associations with a range of maladaptive characteristics. This includes factors that

contribute to a more maladaptive approach to defining competence and success, such as ego-

involvement (e.g., Dunn et al., 2002; Lemyre et al., 2008; Ommundsen et al., 2005). Congruent

6


with these findings, ECP is positively associated with indicators of negative sport experiences

such as negative affect, anger, anxiety, body image concerns, athlete burnout, psychological need

thwarting, and peer conflict (e.g., Dunn, Craft, Causgrove Dunn, & Gotwals, 2011; Frost &

Henderson, 1991; Hall et al., 1998; Kaye et al., 2008; Mallinson & Hill, 2011; Ommundsen et

al., 2005; Vallance, Dunn, & Causgrove Dunn, 2006). It is also often inversely associated with a

more adaptive personal meaning of achievement (e.g., task-involvement; Dunn et al., 2002;

Lemyre et al., 2008; Ommundsen et al., 2005) and indicators of positive sport experiences (e.g.,

life satisfaction, subjective vitality, perceptions of self-worth, self-esteem, and sport friendship

quality; Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; Gotwals, Dunn, & Wayment, 2003; Ommundsen et

al., 2005; McArdle & Duda, 2008). Collectively, this research suggests that ECP may be

associated with a more adverse experience in youth sport.

One important limitation of research that has examined the relationships between

perfectionism and outcomes in sport is that the potential interactive effects between PSP and

ECP have largely been neglected. As observed by others (e.g., Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012;

Gotwals, 2011; Hill, 2013), research has instead focused on the unique effects of the two

dimensions (e.g., Appleton et al., 2009; Stoeber, Stoll, Salmi, & Tiikkaja, 2009; Hill et al.,

2008). Examining the interaction is important because it can provide insight into whether the

relationship between two variables is altered in the presence of another (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Here, it could help to ascertain whether the presence of PSP and ECP alters their respective

associations with indicators of participant experience and outcomes in sport. Recent research in

sport supports the importance of examining the interaction as the interplay between PSP and

ECP accounts for additional variance in burnout in junior soccer players (Hill, 2013) and well-

being in junior and senior athletes from a range of sports (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012).

7


While this is noteworthy, only one of these studies focused solely on youth athletes (Hill, 2013)

and this was in relation to athlete burnout, an issue more pertinent to aspiring elite athletes rather

than relevant to the whole range of youth participants who take part in sport at various levels,

including school- and community-based sport. In accord, research that examines the unique and

interactive effects of PSP and ECP on indicators of experience in youth sport that are relevant

across all levels of competition (e.g., enjoyment, physical self-worth, and friendship quality)

would be a valuable addition to this area.

The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism

The emphasis on the interplay between dimensions of perfectionism is one of the main

strengths of the recently developed 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau &

Thompson, 2010). According to this model, the two dimensions of perfectionism co-occur to

varying degrees within all individuals and their effects are dependent upon the composition of

specific combinations or subtypes. The first subtype is non-perfectionism (low PSP/low ECP)

and describes individuals who are not personally oriented towards striving for perfection and do

not perceive significant others as putting pressure on them to pursue perfectionistic standards.

The second subtype is pure PSP (high PSP/low ECP) and describes individuals holding

perfectionistic standards derived solely from the self. The third subtype is pure ECP (low

PSP/high ECP) and characterizes individuals who strive to meet perfectionistic standards derived

from pressures in the social environment. The fourth subtype is mixed perfectionism (high

PSP/high ECP) and captures individuals that perceive pressure from significant others to strive

towards perfection but are also personally adhering to perfectionistic standards.

In order to assess the comparative effects of the four subtypes, the 2 × 2 model proposes

four hypotheses (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). The hypotheses are based on concepts derived

8


mainly from organismic theories of human motivation, such as internalization and regulation of

motives and perceived congruence between the self and social environment (see Gaudreau &

Thompson, 2010). Hypothesis 1 states that pure PSP will either be more adaptive (H1a), more

maladaptive (H1b), or no different (H1c) when compared to non-perfectionism. This reflects the

controversy concerning the valence of PSP (Gotwals et al., 2012). Hypothesis 2 posits that pure

ECP will be associated with the worst psychological outcomes when compared to all other

subtypes. This is based on the assertion that pure ECP represents a non-internalized and

externally regulated subtype of perfectionism in which individual motives and values are

predominantly derived from pressures in the social environment. Hypothesis 3 states that mixed

perfectionism will be more adaptive than pure ECP and hypothesis 4 contends that mixed

perfectionism will be more maladaptive than pure PSP. The latter two hypotheses are based on

the assertion that mixed perfectionism is a partially internalized subtype of perfectionism in

which personal values are considered congruent with pressures from the social environment.

A relatively small (but growing) number of studies have tested the hypotheses of the 2 ×

2 model inside and outside of sport. Research involving the two dimensions of perfectionism (as

constituted by single subscales or a combination of subscales from existing measures) has found

support for the adaptive nature of pure PSP in comparison to non-perfectionism (H1a) and, on

occasion, has found no difference between these two subtypes (H1c) (Cumming & Duda, 2012;

Douilliez & Lefèvre, 2011; Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Gaudreau & Verner-

Filion, 2012; Hill, 2013). In line with hypothesis 2, pure ECP has typically been found to be the

most detrimental subtype, including when compared to mixed perfectionism (i.e., hypothesis 3,

Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; Hill, 2013).

Finally, mixed perfectionism has been found to be more maladaptive than pure PSP (i.e.,

9


hypothesis 4, Douilliez & Lefèvre, 2011; Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Hill,

2013). This latter comparison is of particular interest as some researchers consider mixed

perfectionism the only subtype to fully capture perfectionism (e.g., Hall, Hill, & Appleton,

2012). This is important here because while the motivating effects of PSP are typically accepted

in sport, this comparison may enable assessment of the more contentious issue regarding any

costs of perfectionism when high levels of PSP are combined with high levels of ECP (see Flett

& Hewitt, 2005; Hall et al., 2012).

The current study

The current study aims to examine the unique effects and interaction between PSP and

ECP in predicting personal (enjoyment and physical self-worth) and interpersonal (friendship

quality) indicators of experiences in youth sport. To do so, the recently developed 2 × 2 model of

perfectionism was adopted. This model provides a number of hypotheses that can be tested in

relation to the comparative effects of four perfectionism subtypes. Drawing on extant research

and the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1 – Pure PSP will be associated with higher levels of enjoyment, physical

self-worth, and positive aspects of friendship quality when compared to non-perfectionism

(H1a). This is because combinations of perfectionism similar to high PSP and low ECP are

associated with positive physical self-perceptions among competitive athletes (Dunn et al., 2011)

and have been linked with greater positive affect when compared to dance participants with low

PSP and low ECP (Cumming & Duda, 2012). There is also evidence that youth soccer players

perceive their relations with peers as being more constructive when ECP is low (Ommundsen et

al., 2005).

10


Hypothesis 2 – Pure ECP will be associated with the least favorable youth sport

experiences (i.e., lowest levels of enjoyment, physical self-worth, and positive aspects of

friendship quality) when compared to all other subtypes. This is because dance participants with

low PSP and high ECP have been linked with greater negative affectivity when compared to

dance participants with high PSP and low ECP (Cumming & Duda, 2012) and lower levels of

general positive affect have been identified when pure ECP is compared to non-perfectionism in

athletes (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012). In addition, low levels of self-esteem (Gotwals et al.,

2003) and negative peer relationships (Ommundsen et al., 2005) have been identified when ECP

is high.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 – Mixed perfectionism will be associated with higher levels of

enjoyment, physical self-worth, and positive aspects of friendship quality when compared to pure

ECP but lower levels of these indicators when compared to pure PSP. This is expected because

of the proposed protective effect of high PSP on ECP (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012) and

findings that suggest a combination of perfectionism reflective of high PSP and high ECP is

associated with more detrimental athlete self-perceptions (Dunn et al., 2011). It is also supported

by research that suggests mixed perfectionism is associated with higher levels of psychological

adjustment among athletes compared to pure ECP but lower levels compared to pure PSP

(Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012).

Method

Participants

Following institutional ethical approval, 241 young sport participants (n = 98 males, n =

143 females, M age = 15.11 years, SD = 2.03 years, range = 11-19 years) were recruited from

various school- and community-based sports. Participants were involved in their sport at a

11


recreational (n = 27), club (n = 107), district (n = 34), county (n = 31), regional (n = 28), and/or

national level (n = 14). On average, participants had taken part in their sport for 3.13 years (SD =

2.36) and trained and played for 4.12 hours per week (SD = 3.62). The sample reported on a 9-

point Likert scale that their sport participation was very important (M = 6.93, SD = 1.73) in

comparison to the other activities in their lives (1 = not at all important; 9 = extremely

important).

Procedure

Initial contact was made with gatekeepers (e.g., coach, club secretary, and/or head

teacher) of various school- and community-based sport groups in the North of England to explain

the purpose and requirements of the study. For the school- and community-based sport groups

willing to take part, an information sheet was distributed to prospective participants and their

parents/guardian. Parent/guardian consent and child assent was gained for those willing to

participate. Subsequently, participants were invited to complete a multi-section questionnaire.

Questionnaires were administered at a time convenient for the organizer of the school- or

community-based sport group (e.g., before or after a sports session).

Instruments

Multidimensional perfectionism. The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2

(Sport-MPS-2; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009) was used to assess PSP and ECP. The Sport-MPS-2

contains 6 subscales labeled Personal Standards (7 items, e.g., ‘I have extremely high goals for

myself in my sport’), Concern Over Mistakes (8 items, e.g., ‘If I fail in competition, I feel like a

failure as a person’), Doubts About Actions (6 items, e.g., ‘Prior to competition, I rarely feel

satisfied with my training’), Organization (6 items, e.g., ‘I have and follow a pre-competitive

routine’), Perceived Coach Pressure (6 items, e.g., ‘My coach sets very high standards for me in

12


competition’) and Perceived Parental Pressure (9 items, e.g., ‘My parents expect excellence from

me in my sport’). Items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 =

strongly agree) and participants are asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with

statements that identify how athletes view certain aspects of their competitive sport experiences.

Multiple independent investigations have produced supportive evidence regarding the validity

and reliability of the Sport-MPS-2, including evidence regarding the instrument’s internal

reliability and subscale structure (e.g., Gotwals & Dunn, 2009; Gotwals, Dunn, Causgrove Dunn,

& Gamache, 2010). Consistent with the recent recommendations of Stoeber (2011), personal

standards was used to reflect PSP and a combination of concern over mistakes and doubts about

actions was used to constitute ECP. Prior to adding them together, scores for concern over

mistakes and doubts about actions were standardized so to ensure there was equal weighting in

the composite. Scores for personal standards were also standardized for ease of interpretation and

comparability.

Enjoyment. Perceptions of enjoyment were captured using the sport enjoyment subscale

of the Sport Commitment Model (Scanlan et al., 1993). The subscale includes 4 items asking

about the participant’s feelings towards playing their sport that season (e.g., ‘Are you happy

playing your sport?’). Participants are asked to the rate items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at

all; 5 = very much). Scanlan et al. (1993) have produced supportive evidence regarding adequate

internal reliability of the subscale (α = .94).

Physical self-worth. Perceptions of participant’s physical self-worth were assessed using

the physical self-worth subscale of the Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile

(Whitehead, 1995). The subscale contains 6 items in a structured alternative format (e.g., ‘Some

kids are proud of themselves physically’ but ‘Other kids don’t have much to be proud of

13


physically’). The participant is asked to indicate which of the two statements comprising the item

is most like them and the degree to which it is “sort of true” or “really true” for them. Responses

are scored on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 corresponding to a “really true” of me response to a

negative statement and 4 corresponding to a “really true” of me response to a positive statement.

Jones, Polman, and Peters (2009) have provided supportive evidence regarding adequate internal

reliability of the subscale (α ≥ .70).

Sport friendship quality. The Sport Friendship Quality Scale (SFQS; Weiss & Smith,

1999) was used to assess participant’s perceptions of their relationship with their best sport

friend. The SFQS includes 22 items that assess the positive friendship aspects of self-esteem

enhancement and supportiveness (SEES; 4 items, e.g., ‘After I make mistakes, my friend

encourages me’), loyalty and intimacy (LAI; 4 items, e.g., ‘My friend looks out for me’), things

in common (TIC; 4 items, e.g., ‘My friend and I do similar things’), companionship and pleasant

play (CPP; 4 items, e.g., ‘My friend and I play well together’) and conflict resolution (CR; 3

items, e.g., ‘My friend and I make up easily when we have a fight’). The instrument also includes

a friendship conflict aspect (CON; 3 items, e.g., ‘My friend and I fight’). Items are rated on a 5-

point Likert scale (1 = not at all true; 5 = really true). In terms of reliability and validity

evidence, Weiss and Smith (1999) have demonstrated a satisfactory factorial structure and

acceptable internal reliability for each subscale (α’s ≥ .70).

Results

Preliminary analysis

A series of preliminary analyses (i.e., missing value analysis, assessment of normality,

and an internal reliability analysis) were conducted prior to the main analyses. Missing value

analysis indicated that there were 160 complete cases and 81 incomplete cases. Consistent with

14


the recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), 5 of the incomplete case participants

were removed because their item non-response exceeded 5%. In terms of the remaining

incomplete cases (n = 76), none of the participants had item non-response for more than 5 items

(M = 1.89, SD = 1.27, range = 1 to 5 items) and the ratio of missing data patterns to the number

of incomplete cases was high (ratio = 0.85). As a result, the data was deemed missing in a non-

systematic manner and missing values were replaced using the mean of the non-missing items

from the subscale in each individual case (see Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003).

The data was then assessed for univariate and multivariate normality in accordance with

Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007) recommendations. In terms of univariate outliers, 15 participants

were removed based on standardized z-scores for subscales larger than 3.29 (p < .001, two-

tailed). A further 2 participants’ scores were considered multivariate outliers and removed

because their Mahalanobis distance was greater than χ2

(10) = 29.59 (p < .001). The sample for the

main statistical analysis comprised the remaining 219 participants (n = 88 males, n = 131

females, M age = 15.12, SD = 2.02, range = 11 to 19 years). Internal reliability was sufficient for

all of the subscales as all Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were ≥ .70 (see Table 1).

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation coefficients

Based on the Likert scales adopted and range of scores, the sample reported moderate

levels of PSP and ECP and moderate-to-high levels of all of the indicators of youth sport

experience (see Table 1). PSP had significant positive correlations with enjoyment and four of

the sport friendship quality subscales (self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness, things in

common, companionship and pleasant play, and conflict resolution). It was unrelated to physical

self-worth and the remaining sport friendship quality subscales (loyalty and intimacy and

friendship conflict). ECP had significant negative correlations with physical self-worth and one

15


of the sport friendship quality subscales (self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness). It had a

significant positive correlation with friendship conflict and was unrelated to enjoyment and the

remaining sport friendship quality subscales (loyalty and intimacy, things in common,

companionship and pleasant play, and conflict resolution).

Test of the hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism

The hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model were tested using the guidelines provided by

Gaudreau and colleagues (Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). A hierarchical

regression analysis was conducted for each of the indicators of youth sport experience. In the

first step, scores for PSP and ECP were entered (main effects model). In the second step, the

interactive term (i.e., the product of PSP and ECP) was entered (interaction effect model). Where

a significant interaction effect did not emerge, the main effects model was interpreted using the

heuristic provided by Gaudreau (2012). This allows the hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model to be

tested using main effects only. Where a significant interactive effect was identified, simple

slopes analyses were conducted. The first simple slope of PSP at low ECP (-1SD) was used to

compare pure PSP and non-perfectionism (hypothesis 1a; pure PSP will be more adaptive when

compared to non-perfectionism). The second simple slope of PSP at high ECP (+1SD) was used

to compare pure ECP and mixed perfectionism (hypothesis 3; mixed perfectionism will be more

adaptive than pure ECP). The third simple slope of ECP at low PSP (-1SD) was used to compare

pure ECP and non-perfectionism (hypothesis 2; pure ECP will be associated with the least

favorable psychological outcomes). The fourth simple slope of ECP at high PSP (+1SD) was

used to compare pure PSP and mixed perfectionism (hypothesis 4; mixed perfectionism will be

more maladaptive than pure PSP). The final model (interaction effect model or main effects

model) for each criterion variable are displayed in Table 2.

16


Enjoyment. In the interaction effect model, the interactive term between PSP and ECP

was a non-significant predictor of enjoyment (B = .03, β =.10, t = 1.62, p = .11). The main

effects model indicated that PSP and ECP accounted for a significant proportion of the variance

in enjoyment. PSP was a significant positive predictor. ECP was a significant negative predictor.

Based on Gaudreau’s (2012) heuristic, this provided support for hypotheses 1a, 2, 3, and 4.

Physical self-worth. In the interaction effect model, the interactive term between PSP

and ECP was a non-significant predictor of physical self-worth (B = -.00, β = -.02, t = -.24, p =

.81). The main effects model indicated that PSP and ECP accounted for a significant proportion

of the variance in physical self-worth. PSP was a significant positive predictor. ECP was a

significant negative predictor. Based on Gaudreau’s (2012) heuristic, this provided support for

hypotheses 1a, 2, 3, and 4.

Sport friendship quality. Subscales of the sport friendship quality measure were

analyzed separately. In the interaction effect models, the interactive term was a non-significant

predictor of four of the sport friendship quality subscales (self-esteem enhancement and

supportiveness, B = .04, β = .12, t = 1.84, p = .07, loyalty and intimacy, B = .02, β = .04, t = .65,

p = .52, companionship and pleasant play, B = .02, β = .07, t = 1.06, p = .29, and friendship

conflict, B =.00, β = .00, t = .05, p = .96) but was a significant predictor of the remaining two

sport friendship quality subscales (things in common and conflict resolution). Main effects

models indicated that PSP and ECP accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in the

four sport friendship quality subscales (self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness, loyalty and

intimacy, companionship and pleasant play, and friendship conflict). In the main effects models,

PSP was a significant positive predictor of self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness, loyalty

and intimacy, and companionship and pleasant play. It was not a significant predictor of

17


friendship conflict. In contrast, ECP was a significant negative predictor of self-esteem

enhancement and supportiveness, loyalty and intimacy, and companionship and pleasant play. It

was also a significant positive predictor of friendship conflict. With reference to Gaudreau’s

(2012) heuristic, results for self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness, loyalty and intimacy,

and companionship and pleasant play provided support for hypotheses 1a, 2, 3, and 4. The

findings for friendship conflict provided support for hypotheses 2 and 4 (but not 1a or 3).

Interaction effects for things in common and conflict resolution are displayed in Figures,

1 and 2. Simple slopes analyses for things in common demonstrated that the second (B = .33, β =

.43, 95% CI = .18 to .47, p < .05) and third (B = -.14, β = -.33, 95% CI = -.22 to -.06, p < .05)

simple slopes were significant. The first (B = .13, β = .17, 95% CI = -.02 to .27, p > .05) and

fourth (B = -.03, β = -.07, 95% CI = -.11 to .05, p > .05) simple slopes were non-significant.

These findings support hypotheses 2 and 3 (but not 1a or 4). For conflict resolution, the second

(B = .38, β = .45, 95% CI = .22 to .53, p < .05) and third (B = -.20, β = -.42, 95% CI = -.29 to -

.11, p < .05) simple slopes were significant. The first (B = .12, β = .14, 95% CI = -.04 to .27, p >

.05) and fourth (B = -.05, β = -.11, 95% CI = -.14 to .04, p > .05) simple slopes were non-

significant. These findings support hypotheses 2 and 3 (but not 1a or 4).

Discussion

The current study examined the unique and interactive effects of two dimensions of

perfectionism (PSP and ECP) on personal and interpersonal indicators of experience in youth

sport (enjoyment, physical self-worth, and sport friendship quality) using the 2 × 2 model of

perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). Main and interaction effects indicated that pure

PSP (high PSP/low ECP) was associated with the most positive sport experience with support for

hypothesis 1a of the 2 × 2 model evident in terms of enjoyment, physical self-worth, and three of

18


the five positive aspects of sport friendship quality (self-esteem enhancement and

supportiveness, loyalty and intimacy, and companionship and pleasant play). Pure ECP (low

PSP/high ECP) was associated with the least positive sport experience with support evident for

hypotheses 2 and 3 of the 2 × 2 model across all of the positive indicators of sport experience

examined. Mixed perfectionism (low PSP/high ECP) was associated with a less favorable

experience when compared to pure PSP with support for hypothesis 4 of the 2 × 2 model evident

across indicators, with the exception of the two aspects of sport friendship quality where

interactions were significant (things in common and conflict resolution).

Perfectionism subtypes and indicators of experience in youth sport

Pure PSP was associated with a more positive personal sport experience when compared

to non-perfectionism (higher levels of both enjoyment and physical self-worth). This is

consistent with the notion that pursuing goals and standards that are of personal value and

interest is psychologically rewarding relative to the non-pursuit of such standards (Gaudreau &

Thompson, 2010). Similar findings are reported elsewhere by studies examining the 2 × 2 model

with regards indicators of psychological adjustment and well-being (Gaudreau & Thompson,

2010). There was more mixed evidence regarding pure PSP’s comparative interpersonal sport

experience, with some instances where higher levels of sport friendship quality were identified

(self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness, loyalty and intimacy, and companionship and

pleasant play) and some instances, including interactions, where there were no differences

(things in common, conflict resolution, and friendship conflict). However, overall, pure PSP

appears to be associated with a more positive sport participation experience for youths in the

current study.

19


As predicted, pure ECP emerged as the subtype with the least favorable outcomes.

According to tenets of the 2 × 2 model, this is the most problematic subtype because it is non-

internalized, externally regulated, and lacks the buffering presence of PSP (Gaudreau & Verner-

Filion, 2012). This was evident here in the comparisons with non-perfectionism. The presence of

high ECP unmitigated by PSP was associated with higher levels of friendship conflict and lower

levels of enjoyment, physical self-worth, and all five of the positive aspects of sport friendship

quality relative to non-perfectionism. This adds to previous research that has found this subtype

to be the most problematic relative to non-perfectionism (Douilliez & Lefèvre, 2011; Gaudreau

& Thompson, 2010; Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; Hill, 2013). The same pattern of findings

was also evident when compared to mixed perfectionism with the exception of friendship

conflict where there was no difference. This is consistent with assertions that the protective

effect of high PSP in mixed perfectionism may be more apparent when assessing positive rather

than negative outcomes (see Douilliez & Lefèvre, 2011; Hill, 2013).

Of particular interest here were the effects of mixed perfectionism in relation to pure

PSP. This is because mixed perfectionism is considered, by some researchers, as the closest

proxy of perfectionism as traditionally described (e.g., a combination of both high striving for

perfectionistic standards and high evaluative concerns; Blatt, 1995). Therefore, this comparison

may provide insight into the issue of whether there are any potential costs associated with

energizing performance in sport via this subtype of perfectionism (Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Hall et

al., 2012). Of note, mixed perfectionism conveyed comparatively less favorable outcomes than

pure PSP in terms of enjoyment, physical self-worth, and four out of the six aspects of sport

friendship quality. This was only not the case when a significant interaction was evident in

predicting things in common and conflict resolution. These two subtypes did not significantly

20


differ for these aspects of sport friendship quality. Collectively, the findings suggest that when

mixed perfectionism drives participation in sport it may carry some comparative costs in terms of

youth sport experiences.

Implications

The study has a number of important implications. The endorsement of high personal

standards is an integral part of youth sport participation with the pursuit and attainment of

personally valued standards being able to promote a number of psychological, emotional, and

interpersonal rewards. Therefore, setting and striving for high personal standards should be

encouraged in youth sport. This endorsement is only likely to become problematic when the

meaning youth sport participants give to their achievement-related behaviors also includes

evaluative concerns and doubts (Hall, 2006; Stoeber, 2011). Within social-cognitive approaches

to motivation, one means of waylaying these concerns would be to encourage participants to

view competence in terms of personal mastery, promote cooperation (as opposed to social

comparison), and reward effort regardless of the outcome. Embedding social cues that promote

this approach in the social environment is known to promote more positive youth sport

experiences (see Roberts, 2012, for a review). They may also have the added benefit of ensuring

a more positive sport experience for youth participants who exhibit problematic subtypes of

perfectionism (e.g., pure ECP and mixed perfectionism) (Hall, et al., 2012).

Limitations and future research

Whilst the findings of the current study are noteworthy, they should be considered in

terms of the study’s limitations. First, the research was cross-sectional and used self-report

measures. Re-examining the relationships across time and incorporating multiple different

methods of assessment is necessary to corroborate findings. Second, the sample comprised

21


school- and community-based sport participants from youth sports in the United Kingdom. In

light of research that suggests differences exist across varying social-cultural groups in terms of

perfectionism subtypes in the 2 × 2 model and psychological outcomes (Franche, Gaudreau, &

Miranda, 2012), replicating the current findings cross-culturally would be valuable. Third, we

did not account for potential differences in terms of whether individuals were participating in a

team or individual sport. It is possible that findings for interpersonal indicators, such as

friendship quality, may differ for those involved in team sports where participants may be more

dependent on others in terms of performance (Evans, Eys, & Wolf, 2013). This would be an

interesting avenue for future research. Fourth, the participants’ level of sport participation varied

from recreational to national level (capturing the whole range of participants who involve

themselves in school- and community-based sports). Considering research in youth football that

has found differences in factors that give meaning to achievement-related behavior (i.e., goal

orientation) between elite and non-elite samples (see Kavussanu, White, Jowett, & England,

2011), future research may wish to examine the potential moderating influence of competitive

level. Finally, the current study adopted a single domain-specific measure approach to

constituting the two dimensions of perfectionism. Researchers may wish to adopt other

approaches (e.g., Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; Hill, 2013) with differences in findings being

a possibility depending upon the sub-dimensions examined.

Conclusion

The findings of the current study provide evidence that perfectionism subtypes identified

in the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism predict personal and interpersonal indicators of experiences

in youth sport. Pure PSP typically conveyed more favorable experiences and outcomes when

compared to non-perfectionism. Pure ECP largely conferred the least favorable experiences

22


when compared to all other subtypes. Mixed perfectionism generally provided less favorable

experiences when compared to pure PSP. Therefore, in its various guises, perfectionism has

important implications for understanding participant experiences in youth sport.

23


References

Appleton, P. R., Hall, H. K., & Hill, A. P. (2009). Motivational antecedents of athlete burnout:

The influence of perfectionism and achievement goal orientations. Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 10, 457-465.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Blatt, S.J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of

depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.

Cumming, J., & Duda, J.L. (2012). Profiles of perfectionism, body-related concerns, and

indicators of psychological health in vocational dance students: An investigation of the 2 x

2 model of perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 729-738.

Douilliez, C., & Lefèvre, F. (2011). Interactive effect of perfectionism dimensions on depressive

symptoms: A reply to Gaudreau and Thompson (2010). Personality and Individual

Differences, 50, 1147-1151.

Dunn, J.G.H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Syrotuik, D.G. (2002). Relationship between

multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 24, 376-395.

Dunn, J.G.H., Craft, J.M., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gotwals, J.K. (2011). Comparing a domain-

specific and global measure of perfectionism in competitive female figure skaters. Journal

of Sport Behavior, 34, 25-46.

24


Evans, B., Eys, M., & Wolf, S. (2013). Exploring the nature of interpersonal influence in elite

individual sport teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 448-462.

Flett, G.L., & Hewitt, P.L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in sport and exercise. American

Psychological Society, 14, 14-18.

Fox, K.R. (2000). Self-esteem, self-perceptions, and exercise. International Journal of Sport


Franche, V., Gaudreau, P., & Miranda, D. (2012). The 2 x 2 model of perfectionism: A

comparison across Asian Canadians and European Canadians. Journal of Counseling


Fraser-Thomas, J. & Côté, J. (2006). Youth sports: Implementing findings and moving forward

with research. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 12-27.

Frost, R.O. & Henderson, K.J. (1991). Perfectionism and reactions to athletic competition.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 323-335.

Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 449-468.

Gaudreau, P. (2012). A methodological note on the interactive and main effects of dualistic

personality dimensions: An example using the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Personality

and Individual Differences, 52, 26-31.

Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 x 2 model of dispositional perfectionism.

Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532-537.

Gaudreau, P., & Verner-Filion, J. (2012). Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test of

the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain. Sport, Exercise, and Performance


25


Gotwals, J.K. (2011). Perfectionism and burnout within intercollegiate sport: A person-oriented

approach. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 489-510.

Gotwals, J.K. & Dunn, J.G.H. (2009). A multi-method multi-analytic approach to establish

internal construct validity evidence: The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2.

Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13, 71-92.

Gotwals, J.K., Dunn, J.G.H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gamache, V. (2010). Establishing construct

validity evidence for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 11, 423-432.

Gotwals, J.K., Dunn, J.G.H., & Wayment, H.A. (2003). An examination of perfectionism and

self-esteem in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 17-37.

Gotwals, J.K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J.G.H., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings in sport

adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence.

Canadian Psychology, 53, 263-279.

Graham, J.W., Cumsille, P.E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In

J.A. Schinka & W.F. Velicer (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 87-112). New

York, NY: Wiley.

Hall, H.K. (2006). Perfectionism: A hallmark quality of world class performers, or a

psychological impediment to athletic development? In D. Hackfort & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.),

Essential processes for attaining peak performance (pp. 178-211). Oxford, UK: Meyer and

Meyer.

Hall, H.K., Hill, A.P., & Appleton, P.R. (2012) Perfectionism: A foundation for sporting

excellence or an uneasy pathway toward purgatory? In Roberts, G.C. & Treasure D. (Eds.),

26


Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129-168). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Hall, H.K., Kerr, A.W., & Matthews, J. (1998). Precompetitive anxiety in sport: The contribution

of achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 194-

217.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human

Development, 1, 661-669.

Hewitt, P.L. & Flett, G.L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:

Conceptualization, assessment and association with psychopathology. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

Hill, A.P. (2013). Perfectionism and burnout in junior soccer players: A test of the 2 x 2 model of

dispositional perfectionism. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35, 18-29.

Hill, A.P., Hall, H.K., Appleton, P.R., & Kozub, S.A. (2008). Perfectionism and burnout in

junior elite soccer players: The mediating influence of unconditional self-acceptance.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 630-644.

Jones, R.J.A., Polman, R.C.J., & Peters, D.M. (2009). Physical self-perceptions of adolescents in

years 8, 9 and 10 in independent schools, state comprehensive schools, and specialist

sports colleges in England. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14, 109-124.

Kavussanu, M., White, S.A., Jowett, S., & England, S. (2011). Elite and non-elite male

footballers differ in goal orientation and perceived parental climate. International Journal

of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 284-290.

27


Kaye, M.P., Conroy, D.E., & Fifer, A.M. (2008). Individual differences in incompetence

avoidance: A comparison of multiple dimensions of perfectionism and fear of failure.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 110-132.

Lemyre, P.-N., Hall, H.K., & Roberts, G.C. (2008). A social cognitive approach to burnout in

athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 18, 221-234.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mallinson, S.H. & Hill, A.P. (2011). The relationship between multidimensional perfectionism

and psychological need thwarting in junior sports participants. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 12, 676-684.

McArdle, S. & Duda, J.L. (2008). Exploring the etiology of the indices and correlates of

perfectionism in young athletes. Social Development, 17, 980-997.

Nicholls, J. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames

(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (pp. 39-73). New York:

Academic Press.

Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G.C., Lemyre, P.-N., & Miller, B.W. (2005). Peer relationships in

adolescent competitive soccer: Associations to perceived motivational climate,

achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 977-989.

Roberts, G.C. (2012). Motivation in sport and exercise from an achievement goal theory

perspective: After 30 years, where are we? In G. C. Roberts & D. Treasure (Eds.), Advances

in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 5-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

28


Scanlan, T.K., Carpenter, P.J., Schmidt, G.W., Simons, J.P., & Keeler, B. (1993). An

introduction to the Sport Commitment Model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,

15, 1-15.

Smith, A.L. (2007). Youth peer relationships in sport. In S.J. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social

Psychology in Sport (pp. 41-54). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Stoeber, J. (2011). The dual nature of perfectionism in sports: Relationships with emotion,

motivation, and performance. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4,

128-145.

Stoeber, J., Stoll, O., Salmi, O., & Tiikkaja, J. (2009). Perfectionism and achievement goals in

young Finnish ice-hockey players aspiring to make the Under-16 national team. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 27, 85-94.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vallance, J.K.H., Dunn, J.G.H. & Causgrove Dunn, J.L. (2006). Perfectionism, anger and

situation criticality in competitive youth ice hockey. Journal of Sport and Exercise


Weiss, M.R. (2008). “Field of Dreams”: Sport as a context for youth development. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 434-449.

Weiss, M.R., & Smith, A.L. (1999). Quality of youth sport friendships: Measurement,

development and validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 145-166.

Whitehead, J.R. (1995). A study of children’s physical self-perceptions using an adapted

physical self-perception profile questionnaire. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 132-151.

29


Table 1

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation coefficients between variables (n = 219).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. PSP 3.10 .76 .82

2. ECP 5.52 1.42 .58** .89

3. ENJOY 4.59 .57 .20** -.10 .91

4. PSW 2.71 .56 .01 -.24** .21** .70

5. SEES 4.08 .70 .17* -.18** .41** .18** .77

6. LAI 4.08 .84 .08 -.10 .27** -.01 .48** .83

7. TIC 3.91 .75 .18** .03 .35** .06 .40** .65** .83

8. CPP 4.21 .70 .16* -.05 .35** .08 .44** .70** .62** .80

9. CR 3.93 .83 .14* -.10 .25** .05 .46** .41** .43** .36** .78

10. CON 2.31 1.11 .11 .31** -.12 -.14* -.28** .04 .01 .01 -.12 .86

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; internal reliability alpha coefficients are shown on the diagonal; PSP = personal standards perfectionism;

ECP = evaluative concerns perfectionism; ENJOY = enjoyment; PSW = physical self-worth; SEES = self-esteem enhancement and

supportiveness; LAI = loyalty and intimacy; TIC = things in common; CPP = companionship and pleasant play; CR = conflict

resolution; CON = friendship conflict; values presented for PSP and ECP are derived from raw scores.

30


Table 2

Main and interaction effect models for each criterion variable (n = 219).

F df R2 ∆R

2 PSP ECP PSP*ECP

β / B (t)

Enjoyment (main effects model)

Step 1 13.50** (2, 216) .11 .39** / .22 (4.97) -.32** / -.11 (-4.10)

Physical self-worth (main effects model)

Step 1 9.51** (2, 216) .08 .19* / .11 (2.35) -.35** / -.11 (-4.36)

Self-esteem enhancement and supportiveness (main effects model)

Step 1 18.29** (2, 216) .15 .41** / .29 (5.31) -.42** / -.17 (-5.44)

Loyalty and intimacy (main effects model)

Step 1 4.21* (2, 216) .04 .21*/ .17 (2.53) -.22** / -.10 (-2.63)

Things in common (interaction effect model)

Step 1 6.64** (2, 216) .06 .29** / .22 (3.62) -.20* / -.08 (-2.43)

Step 2 6.60** (3, 215) .08 .03* .30** / .23 (3.75) -.20* / -.09 (-2.49) .16* / .06 (2.49)

Companionship and pleasant play (main effects model)

Step 1 6.25** (2, 216) .06 .28** / .20 (3.45) -.21** / -.09 (-2.64)

Conflict resolution (interaction effect model)

Step 1 7.49** (2, 216) .07 .29** / .24 (3.57) -.27** / -.13 (-3.28)

Step 2 7.95** (3, 215) .10 .04** .30** / .25 (3.73) -.27** / -.13 (-3.38) .19** / .07 (2.89)

31


Friendship conflict (main effects model)

Step 1 12.63** (2, 216) .11 -.10 / -.11 (-1.28) .37** / .24 (4.70)

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; PSP = personal standards perfectionism; ECP = evaluative concerns perfectionism. Any discrepancy

between R-squared and R-squared change scores reflects rounding to 2 decimal places.

32


Figure 1. Simple slopes of the relationship between evaluative concerns perfectionism and things in common at low (-1SD) and high

(+1SD) personal standards perfectionism.

Note. H1abc represents a non-significant difference between pure personal standards perfectionism and non-perfectionism, p > .05;

*H2 represents a significant difference between pure evaluative concerns perfectionism and non-perfectionism, p < .05; *H3

represents a significant difference between mixed perfectionism and pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, p < .05; H4 represents a

non-significant difference between mixed perfectionism and pure personal standards perfectionism, p > .05.

3.88

3.38

4.13

4.03

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Low ECP High ECP

Th

ing

s in

com

mon

Evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP)

Low PSP

High PSP

Personal

standards

perfectionism

(PSP)

*H3

*H2

H1abc

H4

33


Figure 2. Simple slopes of the relationship between evaluative concerns perfectionism and conflict resolution at low (-1SD) and high

(+1SD) personal standards perfectionism.

Note. H1abc represents a non-significant difference between pure personal standards perfectionism and non-perfectionism, p > .05;

*H2 represents a significant difference between pure evaluative concerns perfectionism and non-perfectionism, p < .05; *H3

represents a significant difference between mixed perfectionism and pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, p < .05; H4 represents a

non-significant difference between mixed perfectionism and pure personal standards perfectionism, p > .05.

3.97

3.26

4.20

4.01

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Low ECP High ECP

Con

flic

t reso

luti

on

Evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP)

Low PSP

High PSP

Personal

standards

perfectionism

(PSP)

H4

H1abc

*H2

*H3

Documents

PERFECTIONISM AND SPORT EXPERIENCES Sarah H. Mallinson · 2015. 8. 17. · 1 PERFECTIONISM AND SPORT EXPERIENCES The 2 × 2 Model of Perfectionism and School- and Community-Based